draft-ietf-bier-evpn-02.txt   draft-ietf-bier-evpn-03.txt 
BIER Z. Zhang BIER Z. Zhang
Internet-Draft A. Przygienda Internet-Draft A. Przygienda
Intended status: Standards Track Juniper Networks Intended status: Standards Track Juniper Networks
Expires: May 7, 2020 A. Sajassi Expires: October 18, 2020 A. Sajassi
Cisco Systems Cisco Systems
J. Rabadan J. Rabadan
Nokia Nokia
November 4, 2019 April 16, 2020
EVPN BUM Using BIER EVPN BUM Using BIER
draft-ietf-bier-evpn-02 draft-ietf-bier-evpn-03
Abstract Abstract
This document specifies protocols and procedures for forwarding This document specifies protocols and procedures for forwarding
broadcast, unknown unicast and multicast (BUM) traffic of Ethernet broadcast, unknown unicast and multicast (BUM) traffic of Ethernet
VPNs (EVPN) using Bit Index Explicit Replication (BIER). VPNs (EVPN) using Bit Index Explicit Replication (BIER).
Requirements Language Requirements Language
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
skipping to change at page 1, line 42 skipping to change at page 1, line 42
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
This Internet-Draft will expire on May 7, 2020. This Internet-Draft will expire on October 18, 2020.
Copyright Notice Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2019 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the Copyright (c) 2020 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved. document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
(https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of (https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
publication of this document. Please review these documents publication of this document. Please review these documents
carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must
include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
described in the Simplified BSD License. described in the Simplified BSD License.
Table of Contents Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
1.1. Terminologies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 1.1. Terminologies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. Use of the PMSI Tunnel Attribute . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 2. Use of the PMSI Tunnel Attribute . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2.1. Auxiliary Information . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 2.1. IP Based Tunnel and BIER PHP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
2.2. Explicit Tracking . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 2.2. Explicit Tracking . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
2.2.1. Using IMET/SMET routes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 2.2.1. Using IMET/SMET routes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
2.2.2. Using S-PMSI/Leaf A-D Routes . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 2.2.2. Using S-PMSI/Leaf A-D Routes . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
2.3. MPLS Label in PTA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 2.3. MPLS Label in PTA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
3. Multihoming Split Horizon . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 3. Multihoming Split Horizon . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
4. Data Plane . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 4. Data Plane . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
4.1. Encapsulation and Transmission . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 4.1. Encapsulation and Transmission . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
4.1.1. At a BFIR that is an Ingress PE . . . . . . . . . . . 8 4.1.1. At a BFIR that is an Ingress PE . . . . . . . . . . . 8
4.1.2. At a BFIR that is a P-tunnel Segmentation Point . . . 10 4.1.2. At a BFIR that is a P-tunnel Segmentation Point . . . 10
4.2. Disposition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 4.2. Disposition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
4.2.1. At a BFER that is an Egress PE . . . . . . . . . . . 11 4.2.1. At a BFER that is an Egress PE . . . . . . . . . . . 11
4.2.2. At a BFER that is a P-tunnel Segmentation Point . . . 11 4.2.2. At a BFER that is a P-tunnel Segmentation Point . . . 11
5. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 5. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
7. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 7. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
8. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 8. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
8.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 8.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
8.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 8.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
1. Introduction 1. Introduction
[RFC7432] and [RFC8365] specify the protocols and procedures for [RFC7432] and [RFC8365] specify the protocols and procedures for
Ethernet VPNs (EVPNs). For broadcast, unknown unicast and multicast Ethernet VPNs (EVPNs). For broadcast, unknown unicast and multicast
skipping to change at page 5, line 25 skipping to change at page 5, line 25
o "Flags". When the tunnel type is BIER, two of the flags in the o "Flags". When the tunnel type is BIER, two of the flags in the
PTA Flags field are meaningful. Details about the use of these PTA Flags field are meaningful. Details about the use of these
flags can be found in Section 2.2. flags can be found in Section 2.2.
* "Leaf Info Required per Flow (LIR-pF)" * "Leaf Info Required per Flow (LIR-pF)"
[I-D.ietf-bess-mvpn-expl-track] [I-D.ietf-bess-mvpn-expl-track]
* "Leaf Info Required Bit (LIR)" * "Leaf Info Required Bit (LIR)"
o "Auxiliary Information". This is optional, present if the total
length of the PTA is larger then the sum of lengths of the fields
before this one. It is in the form of a series of TLVs.
Note that if a PTA specifying "BIER" is attached to an IMET, S-PMSI Note that if a PTA specifying "BIER" is attached to an IMET, S-PMSI
A-D, or per-region I-PMSI A-D route, the route MUST NOT be A-D, or per-region I-PMSI A-D route, the route MUST NOT be
distributed beyond the boundaries of a BIER domain. That is, any distributed beyond the boundaries of a BIER domain. That is, any
routers that receive the route must be in the same BIER domain as the routers that receive the route must be in the same BIER domain as the
originator of the route. If the originator is in more than one BIER originator of the route. If the originator is in more than one BIER
domain, the route must be distributed only within the BIER domain in domain, the route must be distributed only within the BIER domain in
which the BFR-Prefix in the PTA uniquely identifies the originator. which the BFR-Prefix in the PTA uniquely identifies the originator.
As with all MVPN routes, distribution of these routes is controlled As with all MVPN routes, distribution of these routes is controlled
by the provisioning of Route Targets. by the provisioning of Route Targets.
2.1. Auxiliary Information 2.1. IP Based Tunnel and BIER PHP
For the "Auxiliary Information", one TLV is defined in this document
- Tunnel Encapsulation TLV. The value part of the TLV is a Tunnel
TLV as defined in [I-D.ietf-idr-tunnel-encaps].
This MAY be used when VXLAN/NVGRE/GENEVE encapsulation with an IP When VXLAN/NVGRE/GENEVE is used for EVPN, by default the outer IP
header (and UDP header in case of VXLAN/GENVE) is the BIER payload. header (and UDP header in case of VXLAN/GENVE) is not included in the
Normally that is not needed with BIER, except when BIER PHP [I- BIER payload, except when it is known apriori that BIER PHP [I-
D.ietf-bier-php] is used and the encapsulation (after BIER header is D.ietf-bier-php] is used in the BIER domain and the encapsulation
popped) between the BIER Penultimate Hop and the egress PE does not (after BIER header is popped) between the BIER Penultimate Hop and
have a way to indicate the next header is VXLAN/NVGRE/GENEVE. In the egress PE does not have a way to indicate the next header is
that case the full VXLAN/NVGRE/GENEVE encapsulation with an IP header VXLAN/NVGRE/GENEVE. In that case the full VXLAN/NVGRE/GENEVE
MUST be used. The tunnel type (VXLAN/NVGRE/GENEVE), endpoint, and encapsulation with an IP header MUST be included in the BIER payload.
some tunnel specific information MAY be specified in the Tunnel TLV A well-known IP multicast address (to be assigned by IANA) is used as
or MAY be provisioned on PEs. The tunnel endpoint MUST be an IP the destination address and the egress PEs MUST be set up to receive
multicast address and the receiving egress PE MUST be set up to and process packets addressed to the address. The address is used
receive and process packets addressed to the address. The same for all BDs, and the inner VXLAN/NVGRE/GENEVE header will be used to
multicast address can be used for all BDs, as the the inner identify BDs.
VXLAN/NVGRE/GENEVE header will be used to identify BDs.
2.2. Explicit Tracking 2.2. Explicit Tracking
When using BIER to transport an EVPN BUM data packet through a BIER When using BIER to transport an EVPN BUM data packet through a BIER
domain, an ingress PE functions as a BFIR (see [RFC8279]). The BFIR domain, an ingress PE functions as a BFIR (see [RFC8279]). The BFIR
must determine the set of BFERs to which the packet needs to be must determine the set of BFERs to which the packet needs to be
delivered. This can be done in either of two ways in the following delivered. This can be done in either of two ways in the following
two sections. two sections.
2.2.1. Using IMET/SMET routes 2.2.1. Using IMET/SMET routes
skipping to change at page 11, line 48 skipping to change at page 11, line 45
This document requests two assignments in "BIER Next Protocol This document requests two assignments in "BIER Next Protocol
Identifiers" registry, with the following two recommended values: Identifiers" registry, with the following two recommended values:
o 7: Payload is VXLAN encapsulated (no IP/UDP header) o 7: Payload is VXLAN encapsulated (no IP/UDP header)
o 8: Payload is NVGRE encapsulated (no IP header) o 8: Payload is NVGRE encapsulated (no IP header)
o 9: Payload is GENEVE encapsulated (no IP/UDP header) o 9: Payload is GENEVE encapsulated (no IP/UDP header)
This document requests one assignment of a multicast address for the
case discussed in Section 2.1. Preferrably this is assigned from the
Local Network Control Block (224.0.0/24).
6. Security Considerations 6. Security Considerations
To be updated. To be updated.
7. Acknowledgements 7. Acknowledgements
The authors thank Eric Rosen for his review and suggestions. The authors thank Eric Rosen for his review and suggestions.
Additionally, much of the text is borrowed verbatim from [RFC8556]. Additionally, much of the text is borrowed verbatim from [RFC8556].
8. References 8. References
8.1. Normative References 8.1. Normative References
[I-D.ietf-bess-evpn-bum-procedure-updates] [I-D.ietf-bess-evpn-bum-procedure-updates]
Zhang, Z., Lin, W., Rabadan, J., Patel, K., and A. Zhang, Z., Lin, W., Rabadan, J., Patel, K., and A.
Sajassi, "Updates on EVPN BUM Procedures", draft-ietf- Sajassi, "Updates on EVPN BUM Procedures", draft-ietf-
bess-evpn-bum-procedure-updates-07 (work in progress), bess-evpn-bum-procedure-updates-08 (work in progress),
August 2019. November 2019.
[I-D.ietf-bess-evpn-igmp-mld-proxy] [I-D.ietf-bess-evpn-igmp-mld-proxy]
Sajassi, A., Thoria, S., Patel, K., Drake, J., and W. Lin, Sajassi, A., Thoria, S., Patel, K., Drake, J., and W. Lin,
"IGMP and MLD Proxy for EVPN", draft-ietf-bess-evpn-igmp- "IGMP and MLD Proxy for EVPN", draft-ietf-bess-evpn-igmp-
mld-proxy-04 (work in progress), September 2019. mld-proxy-04 (work in progress), September 2019.
[I-D.ietf-bess-evpn-optimized-ir] [I-D.ietf-bess-evpn-optimized-ir]
Rabadan, J., Sathappan, S., Lin, W., Katiyar, M., and A. Rabadan, J., Sathappan, S., Lin, W., Katiyar, M., and A.
Sajassi, "Optimized Ingress Replication solution for Sajassi, "Optimized Ingress Replication solution for
EVPN", draft-ietf-bess-evpn-optimized-ir-06 (work in EVPN", draft-ietf-bess-evpn-optimized-ir-06 (work in
progress), October 2018. progress), October 2018.
[I-D.ietf-bess-mvpn-expl-track] [I-D.ietf-bess-mvpn-expl-track]
Dolganow, A., Kotalwar, J., Rosen, E., and Z. Zhang, Dolganow, A., Kotalwar, J., Rosen, E., and Z. Zhang,
"Explicit Tracking with Wild Card Routes in Multicast "Explicit Tracking with Wild Card Routes in Multicast
VPN", draft-ietf-bess-mvpn-expl-track-13 (work in VPN", draft-ietf-bess-mvpn-expl-track-13 (work in
progress), November 2018. progress), November 2018.
[I-D.ietf-idr-tunnel-encaps] [I-D.ietf-idr-tunnel-encaps]
Patel, K., Velde, G., and S. Ramachandra, "The BGP Tunnel Patel, K., Velde, G., and S. Ramachandra, "The BGP Tunnel
Encapsulation Attribute", draft-ietf-idr-tunnel-encaps-14 Encapsulation Attribute", draft-ietf-idr-tunnel-encaps-15
(work in progress), September 2019. (work in progress), December 2019.
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997, DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.
[RFC6625] Rosen, E., Ed., Rekhter, Y., Ed., Hendrickx, W., and R. [RFC6625] Rosen, E., Ed., Rekhter, Y., Ed., Hendrickx, W., and R.
Qiu, "Wildcards in Multicast VPN Auto-Discovery Routes", Qiu, "Wildcards in Multicast VPN Auto-Discovery Routes",
RFC 6625, DOI 10.17487/RFC6625, May 2012, RFC 6625, DOI 10.17487/RFC6625, May 2012,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6625>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6625>.
skipping to change at page 13, line 42 skipping to change at page 13, line 47
8.2. Informative References 8.2. Informative References
[I-D.boutros-bess-evpn-geneve] [I-D.boutros-bess-evpn-geneve]
Boutros, S., Sajassi, A., Drake, J., Rabadan, J., and S. Boutros, S., Sajassi, A., Drake, J., Rabadan, J., and S.
Aldrin, "EVPN control plane for Geneve", draft-boutros- Aldrin, "EVPN control plane for Geneve", draft-boutros-
bess-evpn-geneve-04 (work in progress), March 2019. bess-evpn-geneve-04 (work in progress), March 2019.
[I-D.ietf-bier-php] [I-D.ietf-bier-php]
Zhang, Z., "BIER Penultimate Hop Popping", draft-ietf- Zhang, Z., "BIER Penultimate Hop Popping", draft-ietf-
bier-php-03 (work in progress), October 2019. bier-php-04 (work in progress), October 2019.
[I-D.keyupate-bess-evpn-virtual-hub] [I-D.keyupate-bess-evpn-virtual-hub]
Patel, K., Sajassi, A., Drake, J., Zhang, Z., and W. Patel, K., Sajassi, A., Drake, J., Zhang, Z., and W.
Henderickx, "Virtual Hub-and-Spoke in BGP EVPNs", draft- Henderickx, "Virtual Hub-and-Spoke in BGP EVPNs", draft-
keyupate-bess-evpn-virtual-hub-02 (work in progress), keyupate-bess-evpn-virtual-hub-02 (work in progress),
September 2019. September 2019.
[I-D.zzhang-bess-mvpn-evpn-cmcast-enhancements] [I-D.zzhang-bess-mvpn-evpn-cmcast-enhancements]
Zhang, Z., Kebler, R., Lin, W., and E. Rosen, "MVPN/EVPN Zhang, Z., Kebler, R., Lin, W., and E. Rosen, "MVPN/EVPN
C-Multicast Routes Enhancements", draft-zzhang-bess-mvpn- C-Multicast Routes Enhancements", draft-zzhang-bess-mvpn-
 End of changes. 14 change blocks. 
35 lines changed or deleted 30 lines changed or added

This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.47. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/